Now I know how ham radio flames feel instead of other hobby flames that get
some using caps and words we shouldn't say in front of the kids.
On Feb 8, 2013 5:18 PM, "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not only NO but HELL NO!
>
> Bring more players, not less operating time.
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 8, 2013, Timothy Coker wrote:
>
>> Shorten it... better for family time, less Sunday boredom, etc.
>>
>> I think this idea has something for everyone. I know a lot of the older
>> guys who no longer choose to stay in the chair due to ailments. I know a
>> number of the younger guys who choose to not stay in the chair due to
>> family time. The third is the shear boredom factor of a one contact per
>> station rule.
>>
>> I could go with the break period too... maybe two hours like NAQP? I
>> personally like the decision making involved with when to break. Plus we
>> can take a walk, sleep, eat dinner with our loved ones, etc.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Tim/ N6WIN.
>> On Feb 6, 2013 12:27 PM, "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 02/06/2013 11:42 AM, RT Clay wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, the fix is simple: shorten the overall length to 24 hours. Still
>> >> keep a required off time of 6 hours. > The off time is important to
>> allow
>> >> stations in different parts of the country to choose the best times to
>> >
>> >> operate (day/night). That is particularly important for small stations.
>> >> Choosing when to take off is also > part of SS strategy.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I could almost warm up to this. Except I would say get rid of the
>> required
>> > off time. Go 24 hours if that's what you want.
>> >
>> > With 24 hours total the exact start time doesn't matter either as far
>> as
>> >> propagation- it covers a full day.
>> >>
>> >
>> > 0000Z to 2359Z . That should make Sunday more interesting - it will be
>> the
>> > first opportunity for significant high band propagation, and there
>> would be
>> > only one night-time opportunity.
>> >
>> > I'm sure the average qso speed in SS has gone up over the years-
>> computer
>> >> logging/etc, plus the exchange used to be longer. So it makes sense to
>> make
>> >> the whole thing shorter.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That is absolutely true. I have listened to recordings from the 1970's.
>> > Much slower. That was the way to pick up the hoards of newly-licensed
>> > General's who could barely do 13 WPM.
>> >
>> > Yes, records get messed up. But they already get messed up every time a
>> >> new section is added.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > If SS is shortened, I could even warm up to grandfathering the old
>> records
>> > and starting new records.
>> >
>> > 73,
>> > Steve, N2IC
>> > ______________________________**_________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> --
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> "Just a boy and his radio"
> --
> Sea stories at --------> http://K0HB.wordpress.com
> Superstition trails ---> http://OldSlowHans.com
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|